Sattler-Assessment of Children.pdf

Assessment of Children using the WISC-V Presented by Jerome M. Sattler, PhD, ABPP

ASSESSMENT WITH THE WISC

– V

May 20, 2017 2017 J EROM EROME E M. SATTL SATTLER ER Copyrigh Copyr igh t © 2016 2016 Jerome M. Sattl Sattl er er,, Publisher, Publi sher, Inc. Inc.

ASSESSMENT ASSESSM ENT WITH WITH THE THE WISC – V

May 20, 2017 JEROME M. SA SATTLER TTLER Copyright © 2016 Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Publisher, Inc.

Opening Poem Reflecting Childhood Put Something In “Draw a crazy picture, crazy picture, Write a nutty poem, nutty poem, Sing a mumble‐gumble gumble song, song, Whistle through your through your comb. Do a loony ‐goony dance goony dance 'Cross the kitchen floor, Put something silly in silly in the world the world That ain't been there before.” ― Shel Silverstein

Thoughts about Intelligence

Thoughts about Intelligence

“Intelligence is important in psychology for psychology for two reasons. First, it is one of the of the most scientifically developed corners of the of the subject, giving the student as complete a view as is possible anywhere of the of the way way scientific method can be applied to psychological problems. Secondly, it is of immense of immense practical importance, educationally, socially, and in regard to physiology and physiology and genetics.” — Raymond Cattell

“Our purpose is to be able to measure the intellectual capacity of capacity of aa child who child who is brought to us in order to know whether know whether he is normal or retarded. ... We ... We do not attempt to establish or prepare a prognosis and we and we leave unanswered the question of whether this retardation is curable, or even improveable. W improveable. Wee shall limit ourselves to ascertaining the truth in regard to his present mental state.” — Alfred Binet

1

Life Outcomes and Intelligence


[1](not in text)

[2](not in text)

Research shows a strong relationship between intelligence test scores and life outcomes such as economic and social competence (see Sattler, 2008 for studies and for most cited research in this section). Examples of 32‐ year‐olds in 1993 in U.S. • Annual income of 32 dollars was dollars was $5,000 for individuals with individuals with IQs below 75, $20,000 for individuals with individuals with IQs of 90 of 90 to 110, and $36,000 for individuals with individuals with IQs above 125 125 (Murray, 1998).

Examples (Cont.) of general intelligence predict • Measures of general occupational level and job and job performance “better than any other any other ability, trait, or disposition and better than job than job experience” (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004, p. 162). • There is a moderate relationship between IQs obtained in childhood (as early as early as 3 years of age) of age) and later occupational level and job and job performance, with an overall correlation of about of about r = = .50 (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).



[3](not in text)

[4](not in text)

Examples (Cont.) General intelligence predicts job predicts job performance better in more complex jobs complex jobs (about r = = .80) than in less complex jobs complex jobs (about r = = .20; Gottfredson, 2003). Intelligence is related to health and longevity (Gottfredson & Deary, 2004). IQs in childhood predict substantial differences in adult morbidity and morbidity and mortality, including deaths from cancers and cardiovascular disease Gottfredson & Deary, 2004).







Examples (Cont.) • Children obtaining high scores on intelligence tests at ages 7, 9, and 11 ( N = = 11,103) had fewer adult hospitalizations for unintentional injuries than those who those who obtained lower scores (Lawlor et al., 2007). • Those with Those with higher intelligence test scores probably had probably had more education, which education, which in turn likely increased likely increased their ability to ability to process information and assess risks

2



[5](not in text)

[6](not in text)

Examples (Cont.) identified before age 13 ( N = N = 320) as having profound mathematical or verbal or verbal reasoning abilities (top 1 in 10,000 on SAT) were SAT) were tracked for three decades (Kell et al., 2013): many have leadership positions in • At age 38 many have business, health care, law, higher education, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Results mirror those of Galton of Galton (1869)

• Youth

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [7](not in text)

Source H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). • Kell, H. J., Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24 Science, 24(5), (5), 648–659. doi: 10.1177/0956797612457784

Examples (Cont.) Kell et al., 2013; Continued ): ): • To identify individuals identify individuals with with profound human potential requires assessing multiple cognitive abilities and using atypical measurement procedures. • These individuals hold extraordinary potential extraordinary potential for enriching society by society by contributing contributing creative products and competing in global economies

• (Gifted,

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [1](not in text) Dear Colleague letter, July letter, July 26, 26, 2016 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 of 1973 • Section 504 of the prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability of disability and requires school districts to provide an equal educational opportunity to opportunity to students with students with disabilities

3

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [2](not in text)


Dear Colleague letter, July letter, July 26, 26, 2016 Deficiencies of Schools of Schools • Students are not being referred or identified as needing an evaluation to determine whether determine whether they have a disability and disability and need special education or related services timely manner • Students not being evaluated in a timely manner once identified as needing an evaluation • School districts are conducting inadequate evaluations of students of students

Dear Colleague letter, July letter, July 26, 26, 2016 Responsibilities of Schools of Schools • School districts must conduct individualized evaluations of students of students who, who, because of disability, of disability, including ADHD including ADHD,, need or are believed to need special education or related services students with • Must ensure that qualified students with disabilities receive appropriate services that are based on specific needs, not cost



Dear Colleague letter, July letter, July 26, 26, 2016 Aim of “Dear of “Dear Colleague” Colleague” letter letter properly evaluate and provide • Help school districts properly evaluate timely and timely and appropriate services to students with students with ADHD

Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Evaluation Considerations A school district must evaluate students who students who are • A school suspected of having of having a disability in disability in all related or all specific areas of educational of educational need of more than IQ tests • An evaluation must consist of more • An evaluation must measure specific areas of educational need, such as speech processing, inability to inability to concentrate, and behavioral concerns

4



Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Evaluation Considerations (Cont.) Cont.) • Tests must be selected and administered so that the results accurately reflect accurately reflect the student’s aptitude or achievement or other factors being measured • Test results should not reflect the student’s disability, except where except where those are the factors being measured

Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Evaluation Considerations (Cont.) Cont.) are validated d • Tests and other evaluation materials are validate for the specific purpose for which for which they are they are used appropriately administered by trained by trained • Tests are appropriately administered personnel



Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Evaluations Must Evaluations Must be Timely deny or delay • Intervention strategies must not deny or evaluation of students of students suspected of having of having a disability districts violate Section 504 when 504 when they • School districts violate deny or deny or delay conducting delay conducting an evaluation of a of a student when student when a disability, and the resulting need for special education or related services, is suspected

Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Evaluations Must Evaluations Must be Timely (Cont.) Cont.) of Section 504 when 504 when they • School districts run afoul of Section • Rigidly insist Rigidly insist on first implementing interventions before conducting an evaluation • Insist that each tier of a of a multi‐tiered model of intervention must be implemented first • Categorically require Categorically require that data from an intervention strategy must strategy must be collected and incorporated as a necessary element necessary element of an of an evaluation

5



Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Summary • Section 504 requires a school district to identify and conduct an evaluation of any of any student student who who needs or is believed to need special education or related services because of a of a disability

Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Summary (Cont.) Cont.) A school district must evaluate students who students who are • A school suspected of having of having any kind any kind of disability of disability in in all specific or all related areas of educational of educational need, even if the if the students do not fit into one suspected disability category disability category or or fit into multiple disability categories



Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Summary (Cont.) Cont.) Students who achieve satisfactory, or even • Students who demonstrate above‐average, academic performance may still may still have a disability that disability that substantially limits substantially limits a major life activity and activity and be eligible for special education or related aids and services because the school district is not meeting their needs as adequately as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met

Dept Dept of Ed of Ed Resource Guide ADHD Guide ADHD & 504 Summary (Cont.) Cont.) of intervention strategies, such as • Implementation of intervention interventions contained within contained within a school’s RTI program, must not be used to delay or delay or deny the deny the Section 504 evaluation of a of a student suspected of having a disability and disability and needing regular or special education and related aids and services as a result of that of that disability

6

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [14](not in text) Source: U.S. Department of Education, of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). Students with ADHD with ADHD and Section504: A Section504: A Resource Guide. Guide. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/o http://www2.ed.g ov/about/offices/list/ocr/l ffices/list/ocr/letters etters// colleague‐201607‐504‐adhd.pdf 

Court Case Showing Need of a Thorough Evaluation [1](not in text) 

In Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City (AL) Bd. of of Ed. Ed. (11th Cir. 2015) 2015) the the U.S. Court of Appeals Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of a of a Hearing Officer and of a of a U. S. District Court and ruled in favor of the of the parent and child. The Court explained that:

Court Case Showing Need of a Thorough Evaluation [2](not in text)

Court Case Showing Need of a Thorough Evaluation [3](not in text)

"[T]he Board violated Board violated . . . IDEA by IDEA by failing failing to evaluate M.W. when M.W. when faced with faced with evidence that she suffered from a suspected hearing impairment. As a result of its of its failure to obtain necessary medical necessary medical information regarding M.W.'s hearing, the Board further failed to provide her with her with a FAPE.

The lack of medical of medical information rendered the accomplishment of the of the IDEA's goals impossible because no meaningful IEP was IEP was developed, and the IEPs put into place lacked necessary elements necessary elements with with respect to the services that M.W. should have been provided. In short, the Board's failure to evaluate M.W. with M.W. with respect to her hearing loss deprived M.W. of the of the opportunity to opportunity to benefit educationally from educationally from an appropriate IEP."

7

Overview of Assessment of Children: WISC–V and WPPSI–IV • Contents:

pp. iv to iv to v v of Tables: pp. vi pp. vi to ix • List of Tables: of Exhibits and Figures: p. x • List of Exhibits Appendixes A, B, and C: pp. 473 to 517 • Appendixes A, • References, Name Index, and Subject Index: pp. 519 to 529 • Tables BC‐1, BC‐2, BC‐3, BC‐4: Inside back cover

Study Suggestions [1] Before you Before you read a chapter summary at summary at the end of the of the chapter key terms, concepts, and names at the end • Look at key terms, of the of the chapter (Note that each of these of these terms, concepts, and names have a page number) study questions • Look at the study questions • Read

Study Suggestions [2] After you After you read a chapter summary at the end of the of the chapter • Read summary at key terms, concepts, and names at the end • Look at key terms, of the of the chapter and define each one (Note that each of these of these terms, concepts, and names have a page number) study questions • Look at the study questions you can’t define a term, concept, or name or • If you answer the study questions, study questions, go back and read the material again

Role of of the the Evaluator in the Assessment the Assessment Process

8

Chapter 1 Major Heads[1] Characteristics for the First Meeting • Establishing Rapport • Observing Children for Administering ng Tests • General Suggestions for Administeri Children with Special • Administering Tests to Children with Needs Based Administration, tion, Scoring, and • Computer‐Based Administra Interpretation

Chapter 1 Major Heads[2]

• Evaluator

• Accounting

• Preparing

• Strategies

for Poor Test Performance for Becoming an Effective Evaluator Confidentiality of Assessment Assessment Findings and • Confidentiality of Records of the Evaluator • Concluding Comment on the Role of the in the Assessment the Assessment Process • Thinking Through the Issues • Summary Key Terms, Concepts, and Names • Key Terms, Study Questions • Study Questions

Goals & Objectives (p. 55)

Wechsler Intelligence Scale Wechsler for Children– V V (WISC (WISC– V): Description

Chapter designed to enable you enable you to: of the WISC– WISC–V V • Evaluate psychometric properties of the the WISC–V competently competently and and • Administer the WISC–V professionally of the WISC– WISC–V V • Evaluate and select short forms of the the WISC–V V and and the WPPSI–IV the WPPSI–IV at at • Choose between the WISC– the overlapping ages the WISC–V V and and the W the WAIS–IV AIS–IV at at • Choose between the WISC– the overlapping ages

9

History of the WISC–V (not in text) Revisions of the of the WISC WISC

* WISC 1st published in 1949

WISC–R first revision published in 1974

WISC–III next revision published in 1991

WISC–IV next revision published in 2003

WISC–V WISC–V latest revision published in 2014

Design • Similarities • Matrix Reasoning • Digit Span • Coding • Vocabulary Figure Weights ights • Figure We • Visual Puzzles

For information about the structure of the of the WISC– V review: V review: • Table 2‐1 (p. 56) • Figs. 2‐1 and 2‐2 (p. 59) • Fig. 2‐3 (p. 60) • Fig. 2‐4 (p. 61)

*David We *David Wechsler chsler,, the original author, died in 1982.

Subtests in the WISC –V [1](pp. 56–58) • Block

WISC –V Structure

• Picture Span • Symbol

Search

• Information • Picture Concepts • Letter ‐Number

Sequencing • Cancellation

Subtests in the WISC –V [2](pp. 56–58) • Naming

Speed Literacy • Naming Speed Quantity • Immediate Symbol Translation • Comprehension • Arithmetic • Delayed Symbol Translation • Recognition Symbol Translation • Exhibit 2‐1 (pp. 57 and 58) presents items similar to those on the WISC–V the WISC–V subtests subtests

10

Definition of Cognitive Proficiency Index (not in text) Definition of the of the word word “Cognitive” or relating to the mental mental processes processes of perception, memory, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted contrasted with emotional and volitional volitional processes.” • From: dictionary.com Definition of the of the word word “Proficiency” • “of

•

Definition of General Ability Index (not in text) Definition of the of the term “General Ability” “General Ability” “a term that is used to describe the measurable ability believed to underlie skill in handling all types of intellectual of intellectual tasks.” ability is the skill underlying all • “Our general ability is tasks.” • From: psychologydictionary.org •

“a high degree of competence of competence or skill; expertise” google.com

• From:

Diagnostic Utility of GAI and CPI (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)

Diagnostic Utility of GAI and CPI (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text)

Devena Devena and W and Watkins atkins (2012) reported the following: Study sample: 5 groups of children of children (hospital • Study sample: sample with sample with ADHD ADHD = 78, nondiagnosed hospital sample = 66, school sample with sample with ADHD ADHD = 196, school matched comparison sample = 196, simulated standardization sample = 2,200) A discrepancy analysis analysis between the GAI and CPI • A discrepancy was found to have “low accuracy in accuracy in identifying children with children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” (p. 133)

Source: Watkins, M. W M. W.. (2012). Diagnostic • Devena, S. E., & Watkins, utility of utility of WISC–IV General WISC–IV General Abilities Abilities Index and Cognitive Proficiency Index Proficiency Index difference scores among children with children with ADHD. ADHD. Journal of Journal of Applied School Applied School Psychology, Psychology, 28(2), 28(2), 133–154. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2012.669743

11

Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text) Rowe, Kingsley, and Thompson (2010) reported the following: Study sample Study sample = 88 children tested for gifted • programming significantly predicted • Both the FSIQ and GAI significantly predicted reading and math scores of the variance variance • However, the FSIQ explained more of the than the GAI

Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text) • Conclusion

Working memory and memory and verbal verbal comprehension explained significant, unique variance unique variance in reading and math • Processing speed and perceptual reasoning did not account for significant amounts of variance variance over and above working above working memory and memory and verbal verbal comprehension • Working memory in memory in the FSIQ was FSIQ was the main difference between FSIQ and GAI •

Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ (WISC–IV) [3] (not in text)

FSIQ vs GAI in Intellectual Disability (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)

Source: E. W., ., Kingsley, J. Kingsley, J. M., & Thompson, D. F. • Rowe, E. W (2010). Predictive ability of ability of the the General Ability General Ability Index (GAI) versus (GAI) versus the Full Scale IQ among gifted referrals. School Psychology School Psychology Quarterly, 25 Quarterly, 25(2), (2), 119– 128. doi:10.1037/a0020148

Koriakin et al. (2013) reported the followiing: Study sample: 543 males and 290 females • Study sample: children were identified as having • Fewer children were intellectual disability using disability using the GAI (n = 159) than when using the FSIQ (n = 196) of GAI for intellectual disability • “The use of GAI diagnostic decision‐making may be may be of limited of limited value.” value.” (p. 840)

12

FSIQ vs GAI in Intellectual Disability (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text) Source: Papazoglou, A., • Koriakin, T. A., McCurdy, M. D., Papazoglou, A., Pritchard, A. Pritchard, A. E., Zabel, T. A., Mahone, E. M., & Jacobson, L. A. L. A. (2013). Classification of intellectual of intellectual disability using disability using the W the Wechsler echsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Full Scale IQ or General Abilities General Abilities Index? Developmental Medicine Developmental Medicine and Child and Child Neurology, Neurology, 55(9), 55(9), 840‐845. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12201

Same Subtests Used to Derived Several Index Scores (p. 61) of subtests • Overlap of subtests

means that these ancillary indexes are not independent.

Items Similar to Those on the WISC–V (pp. 57–58) •

See Exhibit 2‐1

Available Manuals and Technical Reports [1] (p. 61) At present, there are 7 publications related to the WISC–V WISC–V • 4 WISC–V Manuals WISC–V Manuals • 4 WISC–V Technical WISC–V Technical Reports The website for obtaining 3 of the of the 4 Technical • The website Reports can be found in the page 61 of the of the text. •

13

Available Manuals and Technical Reports [2] (not in text) The reference for the 4th Technical Report is as follows: O., Drozdick, L. W L. W., ., Getz, K., • Raiford, S. E., Zhang, O., Wahlstrom, Wahlstrom, D., Gabel, A., Gabel, A., Holdnack, J. Holdnack, J. A., A., & Daniel, M. (2016). WISC–V Coding WISC–V Coding and Symbol and Symbol Search in digital format: format: Reliability, validity, special group studies, and interpretation and interpretation.. Technical Report Technical Report #12. Retrieved #12. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/ WISC‐ V/Qi‐Processing ‐Speed‐Tech‐Report.pdf •

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite[1] Subtest Similarities Vocabulary Vocabulary Information Comprehension Block Design Visual Puzzles Matrix Reasoning Figure W Figure Weights eights

Academic Skills Battery .66 .70 .66 . 58 .52 . 41 .5 1 .54

Useful Psychometric Tables • Demographic characteristics (Table 2‐2;

p. 62) 2‐3; pp. 63–71) Criterion validity studies studies (Table 2‐7; pp. 72–73) • Criterion validity of reliability (Table (Table • Various types of reliability

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite[2] Subtest Picture Concepts Arithmetic Digit Span Picture Span Letter‐Number Seq. Coding Symbol Search Cancellation

Academic Skills Battery . 44 .68 .59 . 42 .55 .23 .34 .11

14

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite[1] Subtest Similarities Vocabulary Vocabulary Information Comprehension Block Design Visual Puzzles Matrix Reasoning Figure W Figure Weights eights

Total Achievement Achievement .65 .63 .57 .52 .43 .37 .35 .33

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite[2] Subtest Picture Concepts Arithmetic Digit Span Picture Span Letter‐Number Seq. Coding Symbol Search Cancellation

Total Achievement Achievement .34 .64 .65 .45 .62 .34 .28 .05

Concurrent Validity of WISC –V VCI, VECI, FRI, and EFI [1] (not in text) Source: Slide: Concurrent Va Concurrent Validity lidity of of WISC–V WISC–V Subtests Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite (Wechsler, 2014c) Slide: Concurrent Va Concurrent Validity lidity of of WISC–V WISC–V Subtests Subtests and WIAT–3 WIAT–3 Composite (Wechsler, 2014c)

Criterion WIA Criterion WIAT–II T–IIII Oral Language Total Reading Basic Reading Reading Comprehension and Fluency Written Written Expression Mathematics Math Fluency Total Achievemen Total Achievementt

VCI VECI FRI EFI .78 .80 .33 .55 .65 .70 .32 .50 .53 .60 .30 .45 .65 .65 .25 .45 .60 .53 . 36 .74 .74

.60 .55 ‐‐ .80

.33 .45 .31 .40

.55 .65 .55 .65

15

Concurrent Validity of WISC‐V VCI, VECI, FRI, and EFI [2] Abbreviations: VCI = Verbal Verbal Comprehension Index VECI = Verbal Verbal Expanded Crystallized Index FRI = Fluid Reasoning Index EFI = Expanded Fluid Index Sources: • Raiford, Drozdick, Zhang, & Zhou (2015) • Wechsler (2014c)

Age Equivalents Table A.9 • Table A.9

(p. 63)

in the Administrat the Administration ion and Scoring Manual (pp. 337–340) provides age equivalents for all the subtests and some process scores (see left column p. 63 in text for discussion) No validity data data are provided in any of any of the the WISC– WISC–V V • No validity manuals for age equivalents they only be be used in an informal • Recommend that they only manner

Relationship of Complementary Indexes and FSIQ to WIAT–III Total Achievement (not in text) WISC–V WISC–V Index Index Naming Speed Index (NSI) Symbol Translation Index (STI) Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI) FSIQ

WIAT–II WIAT–IIII Total Achievement Achievement .29 .39 .45 .81

See Table 5.14 on p. 104 of the of the Technical and Interpretive Manual

Special Group Studies with WISC– V (pp. 75–76) •

13 special groups compared across the primary index scales (Table 2‐8; p. 75) • VCI • VSI • FRI • WMI • PSI

16

Standardization of the WISC –V (pp. 61–62)

• Standardized

on 2,200 children who children who were were selected to represent the school‐age population in the United States in 2012 • Used a stratified sample based on demographic characteristics of age, of age, sex, ethnicity, geographic region, and parental education (as a measure of socioeconomic status)

WISC‐V FSIQs for 5 Ethnic Groups (1) [not in text] Ethnic Group European American European American African American Hispanic American Hispanic American Asian American Asian American Other

FSIQ 103.5 91.9 94.4 108.6 100.4

WISC‐V FSIQs for 5 Ethnic Groups (2) [not in text]

Descriptive Statistics for the WISC –V (pp. 62–76)

Note: Adapted Note: Adapted from Table 5.3 (p. 157) in W in Weiss eiss et al (2016) Source: Weiss, L. G., Locke, V Locke, V., ., Pan, T., Harris, J. Harris, J. G., Saklofske, D. H., & Prifitera, A. Prifitera, A. (2016). WISC–V (2016). WISC–V use use in societal context. In L. G. We G. Weiss, iss, D. H. Saklofske, J. A., J. A., Holdnack, & A. Prifitera (Eds.), WISC–V assessment and interpretation: and interpretation: Scientist‐ practitioner perspectives perspectives (pp. 123–185). San Diego, CA: Academic CA: Academic Press.

The WISC The WISC‐ V uses: V uses: M = 100, SD = 15) for each of the of the • Standard scores ( M = primary, ancillary, and complementary index complementary index scores and for the FSIQ M = 10, SD = 3) for the 16 primary • Scaled scores ( M = and secondary subtests secondary subtests M = 100, SD = 15) for the five • Standard scores ( M = complementary subtests complementary subtests (Note that the complementary subtests complementary subtests have standard scores, not scaled scores)





17

Confidence Intervals [1](p. 71)

Confidence Intervals [2](p. 71)

Table A ‐1 • Table A

(pp. 372–373) shows confidence intervals based on the obtained score and the SEM for • 68% • 85% • 90% • 95% • 99% the VCI, VSI, VSI, • Confidence intervals are shown for the VCI, FRI, WMI, FRI, WMI, PSI, and the FSIQ

Table A ‐2 • Table A

Description of the Five Factors


[1](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)


Verbal Verbal Comprehension Measures verbal knowledge and understanding • Measures verbal obtained primarily through primarily through both formal and informal education and reflects the application of verbal skills to new situations

(pp. 374–375) shows confidence intervals for the 7 ancillary indexes ancillary indexes and 3 complementary indexes • These confidence intervals are based on the child’s obtained score, whereas score, whereas those in the Administration Administration and Scoring Manual are obtained on the child’s estimated true score

Visual Spatial/Fluid Reasoning ability to interpret and organize • Measures the ability to visually perceive visually perceive material, the ability to ability to perform nonverbal inductive reasoning, and the ability to ability to analyze and solve novel problems involving conceptual thinking

18





Working Working Memory the ability to ability to hold and manipulate information as well as well as the ability to ability to pay attention pay attention and concentrate on tasks at hand

• Measures

Description of the Five Factors [5](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)

•

•

Unknown Factor Has only one only one subtest in the total group with group with a high loading: Cancellation We advise that this factor not be used in interpreting the WISC– the WISC–V V

Processing Speed the ability to ability to process visually process visually perceived perceived nonverbal information quickly, with quickly, with concentration and rapid eye‐hand coordination being important components

• Measures

Measurement of g (p. 81) Good Measures of g g

Fair Measures of g g

Vocabulary

Visual Puzzles

Information

Block Design

Similarities

Comprehension

Arithmetic

Matrix Reasoning

Digit Span

Figure Weights Figure Weights

Letter–Number Sequencing

Picture Concepts

Picture Span

Poor Measures of g g Symbol Search

Coding

Cancellation

19

WISC–V Subtests as Measures of g (p. 82) Table 2‐12 Comprehension and W and Working orking Memory subtests (the exception is Picture Span) are good measures of g g • Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning subtests are fair measures of g g g • Processing Speed subtests are poor measures of g (Note: Av (Note: Average erage loading of g g for Cancellation is .24—the poorest measure of g g in the WISC–V the WISC–V)) • Verbal

WISC–V Factor Structure •

[1]

Research Studies The Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler, 2014c) performed a confirmatory factor confirmatory factor analysis on the WISC– the WISC–V V on on the standardization sample for 16 subtests and reported 5 factors: • Verbal Comprehension • Visual Spatial • Fluid reasoning • Working Memory • Processing Speed

Amount of Specificity in WISC–V Subtests (p. 83) • Most subtests •

Table 2‐13 have ample or adequate specificity at specificity at

all ages The three exceptions where exceptions where specificity is specificity is inadequate are Vocabulary at ages 8 and 10 • Vocabulary at • Information at age 11 • Symbol Search at ages 12 and 13

WISC–V Factor Structure

[2]

Research Studies (Cont.) • Sattler et al. (2016; p.76 in text) performed an exploratory factor analysis of the of the WISC– WISC–V V standardization sample for the 16 subtests and found a set of 5 of 5 factors that differed from those Wechsler Wechsler (2014c)

20

WISC–V Factor Structure WISC–V Factor Structure

[3]

Research Studies (Cont.) (2016a) performed an exploratory factor analysis of the of the WISC–V WISC–V standardization standardization sample for the 16 subtests and found that g that g accounts for most of the of the variance variance

Canivez ez et al. • Caniv


[5]

Research Studies (Cont.) Caniv Canivez ez et al. (2016b) also performed a confirmatory factor confirmatory factor analysis of the of the WISC WISC standardization sample for 16 subtests and reported that the g the g factor factor was was more dominant than any other any other factors • Dombrowski et al. (2105) performed an exploratory bifactor bifactor analysis analysis of the of the WISC–V WISC–V standardization standardization sample for the 16 subtests and reported that the g the g factor accounted for the largest portions of the of the total and common subtest variance subtest variance 

[4]

Research Studies (Cont.) support was found for a 4‐ • However, some minimal support was factor model: • Verbal Comprehension Verbal Comprehension:: Similarities, Vo Similarities, Vocabulary cabulary,, Information, and Comprehension • Working Memory Working Memory:: Arithmetic, Digit Span, Picture Span, and Letter–Number Sequencing • Perceptual Reasoning Perceptual Reasoning:: Block Design, Visual Design, Visual Puzzles, Matrix Reasoning, and Figure We Figure Weights ights • Processing Speed : Coding, Symbol Search, and Cancellation • Picture Concepts did not load on any factor any factor


[6]

Sources: L., Watkins, tkins, M. W M. W., ., & Dombrowski, S. • Canivez, G. L., Wa C. (2016a). Factor structure of the of the We Wechsler chsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory factor analyses with analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment. Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 28 Assessment, 28(8) (8) , , 975–986. 975–986. doi:10.1037/pas0000238

21


[7]


[8]

Sources: (Cont.) Cont.) M. W., ., & Dombrowski, S. • Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W C. (2016b, July (2016b, July 21). 21). Structural validity Structural validity of of the the Wechsler Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Confirmatory factor Confirmatory factor analyses with analyses with the 16 primary and primary and secondary subtests. secondary subtests. Psychological Psychological Assessment. Assessment. Advance Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/pas0000358

Sources: (Cont.) Cont.) M. W., ., • Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W & Beaujean, A. Beaujean, A. (2015). Exploratory Exploratory bifactor bifactor analysis of the of the We Wechsler chsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition with Edition with the 16 primary and primary and secondary subtests. secondary subtests. Intelligence, Intelligence, 53, 53, 194–201. 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.009

Scaled Score Ranges for WISC–V Subtests [1] (p. 84)

Scaled Score Ranges for WISC–V Subtests [2] (p. 84)

Table 2‐14 of the 16 subtests have a scaled score range of 1 of 1 • 14 of the to 19 • Picture Concepts has a range of • 1 to 19 at ages 6‐0 to 16‐11 • 2 to 19 at ages 6‐0 to 6‐3

Table 2‐14 (Cont.) • Letter ‐Number Sequencing has a range of • 1 to 19 at ages 7‐4 to 16‐11 • 2 to 19 at ages 7‐0 to 7‐3 • 3 to 19 at ages 6‐4 to 6‐11 • 4 to 19 at ages 6‐0 to 6‐3 • This means that you that you can’t automatically compare Letter‐Number Sequencing scores at ages 6‐0 to 7‐3 with those of older of older ages

22

Range of Index Scores (p. 84) Table 2‐15 All primary index primary index scales have a range of 45 of 45 to 155 of 40 to 160 • The FSIQ has a range of 40 Ancillary index scores have ranges of 40 of 40 to 160 and • Ancillary index 45 to 155 Complementary index scores have a range of 45 of 45 to • Complementary index 155

Guidelines for Computing Index Scores and FSIQs (pp. 84–85) Study the guidelines for computing the following • Study the index scores on p. 85 • Primary index Primary index scores • FSIQ • Ancillary index Ancillary index scores • Complementary index Complementary index scores

•

Test Administration Guidelines [1](pp. 85–88)

Use suitable testing location • Maintain good rapport • Be flexible • Be alert to the child’s mood and needs • Be professional • Follow standardization process steady pace • Maintain steady pace •

Test Administration Guidelines [2](pp. 85–88) • Make smooth

transitions

Be organized Shield your writing writing • Shield your • Take breaks, as needed between, not during, subtests • Praise effort • Empathize and encourage exact wording of the of the directions, questions, • Use the exact wording and items •

23

Test Administration Guidelines [3](pp. 85–88)

performance carefully throughout the test correctly using • Record responses correctly using • (Q) for queries • (P) for prompts • (R) for repeated instructions that you • Score each item after the child answers so that you know when know when to use a reverse procedure and when and when to discontinue the subtest

Supplementary Instructions for Administration (pp. 86–87) Exhibit 2‐2

• Observe the child’s

Subtest Sequence (p. 89) The primary subtests primary subtests that make up the Full Scale are administered in the following order: Block Design

Similarities Matrix Reasoning Digit Span Coding Vocabulary V ocabulary Figure W Figure Weights eights

Study carefully the the supplementary instructions supplementary instructions for • Study carefully •

administering the WISC–V the WISC–V The instructions cover the following areas: • Preparing to administer the WISC–V the WISC–V • Administering the WISC– the WISC–V V • Scoring • Record Form •

General guidelines for completing the Record Form

•

Miscellaneous information and suggestions

Administration Administra tion Issues [1](pp. 89–94) Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC the WISC– V Administration Administration and Scoring Manual for: • Queries • Prompts • Instructions • Repeating items • Additional help • Waiting time • Start point

24

Administration Administr ation Issues [2](pp. 89–94)

Administration Administra tion Issues [3](pp. 89–94)

Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC the WISC– V Administration Administration and Scoring Manual for: (Cont.) • Reverse Sequence rule • Start‐Point scoring rule • Discontinue‐Point scoring rule • Discontinue criterion • Scoring

Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC the WISC– V Administration Administration and Scoring Manual for: (Cont.) • Perfect scores • Points for items not administered • Spoiled responses • Subtest substitution • Proration

Subtest Substitution in the WISC–V (p. 93)

Substitution, Proration, and Retest on the WPPSI–IV [1] (not in text)

Only substitute • Only substitute

a subtest if absolutely if absolutely necessary When you substitute, • When you • Psychometric properties of the of the FSIQ may change • Reliabilities and validities and validities of the of the FSIQ may change • Confidence intervals of the of the FSIQ may change may change No empirical data for substitutions • • No empirical data for number of substitutions of substitutions • Follow the subtest substitution guidelines on p. 93

Zhu et al. (2016) using the standardization data reported that substituting, prorating, and retesting resulted in • An increase of the of the FSIQ SEM by .61 by .61 to 1.92 points, a 20% to 64% increase • Wider confidence intervals by 1.2 by 1.2 to 3.8 IQ points • Misclassifications as high as 22% • Conclusion: Substitution, proration, or retesting introduces additional measurement error •

25

Substitution, Proration, and Retest on the WPPSI–IV [1] (not in text)

Potential Problems in Administering the WISC–V (pp. 94 –97) [1]

Source: Zhu, J., Cayton, T. G., & Chen, H. (2016). • Zhu, J., Substitution, proration, or a retest? The optimal strategy when when standard administration of the of the WPPSI–IV is WPPSI–IV is infeasible. Psychological Assessment. Assessment. Advance Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000272 paper was given at the American the American • Original paper was Psychological Association, Psychological Association, July July 2013 2013 in Honolulu, HI (Zhu and Cayton, 2013; reference in text)

Potential problems (see Table 2‐17, pp. 95–96) include difficulties in : • Establishing rapport • Administering test items • Scoring test items • Completing the Record Form

Potential Problems in Administering the WISC–V

Potential Problems in Administering the WISC–V

(pp. 94 –97) [2]

(pp. 94 –97) [3]

McDermott et al. (2014) pointed out that: Compromised administration and scoring is not unique to cognitive tests It is endemic to psychological assessment in general and affects a broad collection of measuring of measuring devices Characteristics of the of the examiner, examinee, or examiner–examinee relationship also affect the test results They cite They cite Terman (1918) who (1918) who said that “there are innumerable sources of error of error in giving and scoring mental tests of whatever whatever kind” (p. 33) 







Sources: Sources: McDermott, P. A., Wa A., Watkins, tkins, M. W M. W., ., & Rhoad, A. Rhoad, A. M. (2014). Whose (2014). Whose IQ is it? Assessor it? Assessor bias variance bias variance in high‐stakes psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 26 Assessment, 26(1) (1) , , 207–214. doi:10.1037/a0034832 Terman, L. M. (1918). Errors in scoring Binet tests. tests. Psychological Clinic, Psychological Clinic, 12, 12, 33–39. 



26

Using Portfolios to Teach Test‐ Scoring Skills [1] (not in text) • Egan et al.

(2003) reported that students Who maintained a portfolio with portfolio with completed protocols • And reviewed them prior to each practice administration • Made fewer errors than the control group •

Short Forms of WISC–V (pp. 97–98) See Table A Table A ‐5 in Appendix in Appendix A A (pp. (pp. 387–388) for short form reliability and reliability and validity validity coefficients coefficients Tables A ‐7, A 7, A ‐8, A 8, A ‐9, A 9, A ‐10 and A and A ‐11 in • See Tables A Appendix A Appendix A (pp. (pp. 391–401) for 2‐, 3‐, 4‐, 5‐, and 6‐ subtest short forms •

Using Portfolios to Teach Test‐ Scoring Skills [2] (not in text) Source: D., & Butler, J. Butler, J. • Egan, P., McCabe, P., Semenchuk, D., (2003). Using portfolios to teach test scoring skills: A preliminary A preliminary investigation. investigation. Teaching of Psychology, 30 Psychology, 30(3), (3), 233–235. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_08

Reliable and Unusual Scaled‐ Score Ranges (pp. 389–390) •

•

•

See Table A Table A ‐6 for reliable and unusual scaled‐score ranges for 2‐, 3‐, 4‐, 5‐, 6‐, 7‐, 10‐, and 16‐subtest combinations For the FSIQ, a reliable range is 5 points (statistically significant (statistically significant at .05 level) For the FSIQ, an unusual range is 9 points (occurs in less than 10% of the of the population)

27

Choosing Between the WISC–V and the WPPSI–IV or the WAIS–IV (p. 98) WISC– V or V or WPPSI WPPSI–IV WISC– V or V or W WAIS AIS–IV • The WISC–V The WISC–V and and the • The WISC–V The WISC–V also also WPPSI–IV overlap WPPSI–IV overlap at overlaps with overlaps with the the ages 6‐0 to 7‐7 WAIS–IV WAIS–IV at at ages 16‐0 to 16‐11 • Specific recommendations • Specific are provided for recommendations are choosing which choosing which test provided for choosing to use (see page 98 which test to use (see for recommended page 98 for tests) recommended tests)

Strengths of WISC –V (p. 100) 1. Excellent standardization 2. Good overall psychometric properties 3. Useful diagnostic information 4. Good administration procedures 5. Good manuals and interesting test materials 6. Helpful scoring criteria 7. Usefulness for children with children with some disabilities

Administering the WISC–V to Children with Disabilities (pp. 98–100) • Chapter

1 (pp. 36–39) provides general suggestions for administering tests to children with children with special needs, while needs, while Chapter 2 (pp. 98–100) focuses on the WISC–V WISC–V any modifications in • Prior to making any modifications administration procedures • Evaluate the sensory ‐motor abilities of children of children with disabilities • Closely examine Closely examine how suitable the subtests are for a child with child with special needs

Limitations of WISC –V [1] (pp. 100–101)

1. Limited breadth of coverage of coverage of the of the FSIQ 2. Failure to provide conversion tables when tables when

substitutions are made 3. Failure to provide a psychometric basis for

requiring raw scores of 1 of 1 in order to compute FSIQ 4. Limited range of scores of scores for extremely low extremely low or high functioning children 5. Limited criterion validity criterion validity studies studies 6. Possible difficulties in scoring responses

28

Limitations of WISC –V [2] (pp. 100–101)

7. Somewhat large practice effects 8. Occasional confusing guidelines 9. Poor quality of quality of some some test materials

How Am I Going to Score These? Question: What Question: What are 12, 14, and 16? Answer: That’s easy; MTV, Fox, and Cartoon network. Question: What Question: What is celebrated on Thanksgiving Day? Answer: My cousin’s My cousin’s birthday. Question: What Question: What is the capital of Greece? of Greece? Answer: G.

How Am I Going to Score These?


Biology question: Biology question: List three examples of marine life Answer: Marching, Barracks inspection, running the obstacle course.

Question: What Question: What does imitate mean? Answer: What Answer: What does imitate mean?

Astronomy Astronomy question: question: Where Where is the milky way way located? Answer: In the checkout aisle next to the rest of the of the candy bars. candy bars.

Question: What Question: What would would you you do if you were you were lost in the woods? Answer: I’d use my cell my cell phone, pager, or my global my global positioning satellite device.

29



Question: What Question: What ended in 1945? Answer: 1944

Question: Explain the phrase “free press.” Answer: When Answer: When your your mom irons trousers for you for you

Question: Where Question: Where was was the American the American Declaration of Independence signed? Answer: At Answer: At the bottom

Question: What Question: What is a fibula? Answer: A Answer: A little little lie

Question: How do you do you change centimeters to meters? Answer: Take out centi

Question: What Question: What is a stand alone computer system? Answer: It does not come with come with a chair

Reflections on Intelligence and Childhood “Too often we often we give children answers to remember rather than problems than problems to to solve.” —Roger Lewin Roger Lewin

WISC– V V Subtests Subtests

30

Goals & Objectives (p. 107) Chapter designed to enable you enable you to: Critically evaluate the 21 WISC– 21 WISC–V V primary, primary, • Critically evaluate secondary, and complementary subtests complementary subtests • Understand the rationales, factor analytic findings, reliability and reliability and correlational highlights, administration guidelines, and interpretive suggestions for the 21 WISC–V 21 WISC–V subtests subtests

Skills a Child Needs to be Successful on the WISC –V (p. 108) Retain the directions while directions while solving problems Adequate fine‐ and gross‐motor skills Adequate hearing

Scoring WISC –V Items (p. 108) Important considerations in scoring: • Score each item as it is administered • Do not to discontinue administering a subtest prematurely particularly important when when you you are unsure • This is particularly important how to score a response immediately • Better to administer more items in a subtest, even though some may not may not be counted in the final score not want to short‐change the child by • You do not want discontinuing the subtest too soon

Ability to Ability to pay attention and understand directions Adequate vision

Evaluating and Interpreting a Child’s Performance [1](p. 108) Consider: • Child’s scores and responses Quality of child’s child’s responses • Quality of • Child’s response style, motivation, and effort • How child handles frustration • Child’s problem‐solving approach • Child’s fine‐motor skills of successes and failures • Child’s pattern of successes

31

Evaluating and Interpreting a Child’s Performance [2](p. 108) Consider: (Cont.) Cont.) •

How child handles test materials

•

How child handles tasks of each of each subtest •

Responding to difficult items

•

Responding to time limits

Block Design [1](pp. 109–113) Visual • Primary Visual

Spatial subtest Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Key areas • Nonverbal reasoning • Visual‐spatial organization of measurement: See page 109 • Other areas of measurement:

Block Design [2](pp. 109–113)

Similarities [1](pp. 113–116)

Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g moderately to the visual the visual spatial/fluid • Contributes moderately to reasoning factor A reliable subtest • A reliable • Somewhat difficult to administer and score

Verbal Comprehension subtest • Primary Verbal Key area Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Verbal concept formation of measurement: See page 113 • Other areas of measurement: •

32

Similarities [2](pp. 113–116)

Matrix Reasoning [1](pp. 116–118)

Other Considerations g • Good measure of g substantially to the verbal the verbal • Contributes substantially to comprehension factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer, but some responses • Relatively easy may be may be difficult to score

Primary Fluid • Primary Fluid

Matrix Reasoning [2](pp. 116–118)

Digit Span [1](pp. 118–122)

Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g substantially to the visual the visual spatial/fluid • Contributes substantially to reasoning factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Working Memory subtest Memory subtest • Primary Working

Reasoning subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Visual‐perceptual analogic reasoning ability without a speed component of measurement: See page 116 • Other areas of measurement:

Key areas Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Auditory short Auditory short‐term memory • Auditory sequential Auditory sequential processing of measurement: See page 118 • Other areas of measurement: •

33

Digit Span [2](pp. 118–122)

Coding [1](pp. 122–125)

Other Considerations g • Good measure of g substantially to the working the working memory • Contributes substantially to factor A highly reliable reliable subtest • A highly Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Primary Processing • Primary Processing

Coding [2](pp. 122–125)

Vocabulary [1](pp. 125–129)

Other Considerations g • Poor measure of g substantially to the processing speed • Contributes substantially to factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Verbal Comprehension subtest • Primary Verbal

Speed subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Ability to Ability to learn an unfamiliar task involving speed of mental of mental operation and graphomotor speed of measurement: See page 122 • Other areas of measurement:

Key area Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Knowledge of words words of measurement: See page 125 • Other areas of measurement: •

34

Vocabulary [2](pp. 125–129)

Figure Weights [1](pp. 129–131)

Other Considerations g in the WISC–V the WISC–V • Best measure of g substantially to the verbal the verbal • Contributes substantially to comprehension factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer but some responses • Relatively easy may be may be difficult to score

Primary Fluid • Primary Fluid

Figure Weights [2](pp. 129–131)

Visual Puzzles [1](pp. 131–134)

Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g substantially to the visual the visual spatial/fluid • Contributes substantially to reasoning factor A highly reliable reliable subtest • A highly Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Visual • Primary Visual

Reasoning subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Visual‐perceptual quantitative reasoning of measurement: See page 129 • Other areas of measurement:

Spatial subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Visual‐perceptual reasoning of measurement: See page 131 • Other areas of measurement:

35

Visual Puzzles [2](pp. 131–134)

Picture Span [1](pp. 134–136)

Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g substantially to the visual the visual spatial/fluid • Contributes substantially to reasoning factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Working Memory subtest Memory subtest • Primary Working

Picture Span [2](pp. 134–136) Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g substantially to the working the working memory • Contributes substantially to factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Key area Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Short‐term memory of measurement: See page 134 • Other areas of measurement: •

Symbol Search [1](pp. 136–140) Primary Processing • Primary Processing

Speed subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Processing speed of measurement: See page 136 • Other areas of measurement:

36

Symbol Search [2](pp. 136–140)

Information [1](pp. 140–142)

Other Considerations g • Poor measure of g substantially to the processing speed • Contributes substantially to factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Verbal • Secondary Verbal

Information [2](pp. 140–142)

Picture Concepts [1](pp. 142–145)

Other Considerations g • Good measure of g substantially to the verbal the verbal • Contributes substantially to comprehension factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Easy to administer and score • Easy to

Secondary Fluid • Secondary Fluid

Comprehension subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Long‐term memory for memory for factual information of measurement: See page 140 • Other areas of measurement:

Reasoning subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Abstract, categorical reasoning based on visual on visual‐ perceptual recognition process of measurement: See page 142 • Other areas of measurement:

37

Picture Concepts [2](pp. 142–145) Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g moderately to the visual the visual spatial/fluid • Contributes moderately to reasoning factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Letter‐Number Lett er‐Number Sequencing [2](pp. 145–147)

Other Considerations g • Good measure of g substantially to the working the working memory • Contributes substantially to factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Letter‐Number Sequencing [1](pp. 145–147)

Working Memory subtest Memory subtest • Secondary Working Key areas Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Short‐term working term working memory • Auditory sequential Auditory sequential processing of measurement: See page 145 • Other areas of measurement: •

Cancellation [1](pp. 147–150) Working Memory subtest Memory subtest • Secondary Working Key areas Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Visual‐perceptual recognition • Speed of visual visual processing of measurement: See page 147 • Other areas of measurement: •

38

Cancellation [2](pp. 147–150)

Naming Speed Literacy [1](pp. 150–153)

Other Considerations g • Poorest measure of g minimally to the processing speed • Contributes minimally to factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Complementary subtest • Complementary subtest

Naming Speed Literacy

Naming Speed Quantity

[2](pp. 150–153)

[1](pp. 153–156)

Other Considerations • Considered to be a measure of • Processing Speed • Long‐Term Storage and Retrieval • Combines with Combines with Naming Speed Quantity to Quantity to form the Naming Speed Index A reliable subtest • A reliable Easy to administer and score • Easy to

Key areas Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Processing speed • Naming fluency of measurement: See page 150 • Other areas of measurement: •

Complementary subtest • Complementary subtest Key areas Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Processing speed • Naming fluency involving fluency involving quantities of measurement: See page 153 • Other areas of measurement: •

39


Immediate Symbol Translation

[2](pp. 153–156)

[1](pp. 156–158)

Other Considerations • Considered to be a measure of • Processing Speed • Long‐Term Storage and Retrieval Combines with Naming Speed Literacy to Literacy to form the • Combines with Naming Speed Index A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and easy to easy to score • Relatively easy

Immediate Symbol Translation [2](pp. 156–158)

Other Considerations • Considered to be a measure of • Long‐Term Storage and Retrieval • Short‐Term Memory • Visual Processing A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to score, but somewhat difficult to • Relatively easy administer

Complementary subtest • Complementary subtest Key area Key area of measurement: of measurement: Short‐term memory of measurement: See page 156 • Other areas of measurement: •

•

Comprehension [1](pp. 158–160) Verbal • Secondary Verbal

Comprehension subtest Key areas of measurement: of measurement: • Key areas • Practical reasoning • Judgment in social situations of measurement: See page 158 • Other areas of measurement:

40

Comprehension [2](pp. 158–160)

Arithmetic [1](pp. 160–163)

Other Considerations g • Fair measure of g substantially to the verbal the verbal • Contributes substantially to comprehension factor A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer, but somewhat • Relatively easy difficult to score

Secondary Fluid • Secondary Fluid

Arithmetic [2](pp. 160–163) Other Considerations g • Good measure of g moderately to the working the working memory • Contributes moderately to factor A highly reliable reliable subtest • A highly Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Reasoning subtest Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Key area • Numerical reasoning of measurement: See page 160 • Other areas of measurement:

Delayed Symbol Translation [1](pp. 163–165)

Complementary subtest • Complementary subtest Key area Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Delayed visual Delayed visual recall of measurement: See pages 163–164 • Other areas of measurement: •

41

Delayed Symbol Translation [2](pp. 163–165)

Recognition Symbol Translation [1](pp. 165–167)

Other Considerations of Long‐Term Storage • Considered to be a measure of Long and Retrieval A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

Complementary subtest • Complementary subtest

Recognition Symbol Translation [2](pp. 165–167)

Reflections on Intelligence and Childhood

Other Considerations of Long‐Term Storage • Considered to be a measure of Long and Retrieval A reliable subtest • A reliable Relatively easy to to administer and score • Relatively easy

“Integrity without without knowledge is weak is weak and useless, and knowledge without knowledge without integrity is integrity is dangerous and dreadful.” — Samuel Johnson Samuel Johnson “Intelligence without “Intelligence without ambition is a bird without bird without wings.” wings.” — Salvador Dali “You might be poor, your poor, your shoes might be broken, but your mind is a palace.” —Frank McCourt

Key area Key area of measurement: of measurement: • Delayed visual Delayed visual recall of measurement: See page 165 • Other areas of measurement: •

42

Goals & Objectives (p. 171)

Interpreting the the WISC WISC––V

Chapter designed to enable you enable you to: the WISC–V • Describe profile analysis for the WISC–V evaluate WISC–V scores scores from • Analyze and evaluate WISC–V multiple perspectives about WISC–V scores scores and • Develop hypotheses about WISC–V responses Report WISC–V findings findings to parents and others • Report WISC–V

What does the WISC–IV IQ Represent? [1](not in the text)


McDermot McDermot et al. (2014) reported that WISC–IV that WISC–IV FSIQs: Are associated with associated with the assessor’s bias (multilevel linear modeling) Sample size: N size: N = = 2,783 children evaluated by 448 by 448 regional school psychologists for possible special education placements

Chen et al. (2016), in contrast, reported that WISC– that WISC– IV FSIQs: IV FSIQs: Are valid Are valid measures of children’s of children’s intellectual abilities and are not related to the assessor’s bias (hierarchical linear modeling) Sample size: N size: N = = 2,200 in the standardization sample The only subtest only subtest that showed some assessor bias was Comprehension











43


Factors to Consider in Interpreting the WISC –V [1](p. 172)

Source: McDermott, P. A., Wat A., Watkins, kins, M. W M. W., ., & Rhoad, A. Rhoad, A. M. (2014). Whose (2014). Whose IQ is it? Assessor it? Assessor bias variance bias variance in high‐stakes psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 26 Assessment, 26(1) (1) , 207–214. doi:10.1037/a0034832 Chen, H., Pan, T., & Zhu, J. Zhu, J. (2016). It is the examinee’s IQ. Psychological Assessment. Assessment. Advance Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000298

1. Perform a profile analysis





Factors to Consider in Interpreting the WISC –V [2](p. 172) 7. Determine base rates for intersubtest scatter 8. Develop hypotheses and interpretations

2. Determine whether Determine whether the five primary index primary index scores

differ significantly from significantly from each other 3. Determine whether Determine whether the subtest scaled scores

differ significantly from significantly from each other 4. Obtain base rates for differences between the

index scores 5. Obtain base rates for differences between some

of the of the subtest scaled scores

Full Scale IQ [1](p. 172) Includes measures of: • Verbal comprehension • Visual spatial reasoning • Fluid reasoning • Working memory • Processing speed

44

Full Scale IQ [2](p. 172)

Verbal Comprehension Index Similarities Vocabulary

The seven subtests that comprise the Full Scale are:

Block Design Block Design Matrix Reasoning Figure Weights Digit Span Coding

[1](p. 172)

Measures: • Verbal comprehension verbal skills and information to the • Application of verbal solution of new of new problems Ability to process verbal process verbal information • Ability to of information from long‐term memory • Retrieval of information • Crystallized knowledge • Conceptual reasoning ability • Language development

Verbal Comprehension Index [2](p. 172)

Visual Spatial Index [1](pp. 172–173)

The two subtests that comprise the Verbal Verbal Comprehension Index are:

Similarities

Vocabulary

Measures: Ability to think in visual in visual images and manipulate • Ability to them with them with fluency and fluency and speed Ability to interpret or organize visually organize visually perceived perceived • Ability to material quickly • Nonverbal reasoning • Visual‐perceptual discrimination • Visual spatial reasoning ability

45

Visual Spatial Index [2](pp. 172–173)

The two subtests that comprise the Visual Spatial Index are:

Block D Block Design

Visual Puzzles Puzzles

Fluid Reasoning Index [2](p. 173)

Fluid Reasoning Index [1](p. 173) Measures: • Fluid reasoning ability • Visual‐perceptual reasoning and organization Ability to think in visual in visual images and manipulate • Ability to them with them with fluency and fluency and relative speed Ability to interpret or organize visually organize visually perceived perceived • Ability to material quickly • Nonverbal reasoning • Visual‐perceptual discrimination

Working Memory Index [1](p. 173) Measures: • Short‐term

The two subtests that comprise the Fluid Reasoning Index are:

Matrix Reasoning

Figure Weights

memory • Visual processing • Working memory Memory span • Memory span • Visual spatial memory

• Rote

memory Immediate visual • Immediate visual memory • Attention • Concentration

46

Working Memory Index [2](p. 173)

Processing Speed Index

[1](p. 173)

Measures: • Processing

The two subtests that comprise the Working Working Memory Index Memory Index are:

Digit Span

Picture Span

Processing Speed Index

[2](p. 173)

speed • Perceptual speed • Visual‐motor coordination and dexterity of mental • Speed of mental operation • Scanning ability

• Psychomotor speed

term visual • Short‐term visual memory • Visual‐perceptual discrimination • Attention • Concentration

Ancillary Index Indexes es (pp. 173–175) Seven Ancillary Seven Ancillary Indexes Indexes • Quantitative

The two subtests that comprise the Processing Speed Index are:

Reasoning Index

Working Memory Index Memory Index • Auditory Working • Nonverbal

Index

General Ability Index Index • General Ability Coding

Symbol Search S earch

Proficiency Index • Cognitive Proficiency Index • Verbal

(Expanded Crystallized) Index

• Expanded

Fluid Index

47

Quantitative Reasoning Index (p. 173)

• Provides additional

information regarding a child’s reasoning skills, specifically those specifically those involving numeric information

Auditory Working Memory Index (p. 173) • Provides additional

The two subtests that comprise the Quantitative Reasoning Index are:

Figure Weights

The two subtests that comprise the Auditory Working Working Memory Index Memory Index are:

Arithmetic

Nonverbal Index (p. 174)

Digit Span

information about thinking abilities that do not require expressive responses and an estimate of intellectual of intellectual ability, with ability, with reduced demands on verbal on verbal comprehension abilities The six subtests that comprise the

•

Mat M atri rix x Reasoning

Figure Weights

Letter ‐ Number Sequencing

May be May be useful when useful when a means of estimating of estimating intellectual ability is ability is needed that places reduced demands on working on working memory and memory and processing speed The five subtests that comprise the General Ability General Ability Index Index are:

Nonverbal Index are:

Visual Puzzles

General Ability Index (p. 174)

• Provides additional

Block Design

information regarding a child’s

memory skills. memory skills.

Picture Coding Span

Simila Sim ilarit rities ies

Voca ocabu bulary lary

Block Design

Matrix Reasoning

Figure Weights

48

Cognitive Proficiency Index (p. 174) •

May be May be useful when useful when a means of estimating of estimating intellectual ability is ability is needed that places reduced demands on verbal on verbal comprehension, visual comprehension, visual spatial, or fluid reasoning abilities The four subtests that comprise the Cognitive Proficiency Index Proficiency Index are: Digit Span

Picture Span

Coding

Symbol Search

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index [2](p. 174) •

Subtests draw on a child’s accumulated experience The four subtests that comprise the Verbal Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index are:

Similarit Simil arities ies

Voca ocabul bulary ary

Informatio ion n

Comprehension

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index [1](p. 174) Measures: • Verbal comprehension • Receptive and expressive language verbal • Application of verbal skills and information to the solution of new of new problems • Verbal concept formation

• Fund

of information of information of factual • Range of factual knowledge • Logical reasoning • Cognitive flexibility (including the ability to ability to shift mental operations) Ability to self ‐monitor • Ability to

Expanded Fluid Index [1](pp. 174–175) Measures: • Perceptual reasoning • Conceptual thinking Ability to think in terms • Ability to Ability to form abstract • Ability to of visual visual images and concepts and manipulate them with them with relationships without relationships without fluency the use of words words • Cognitive flexibility • Fluid reasoning (including the ability to ability to • Attention shift mental operations) • Concentration • Nonverbal ability Ability to self ‐monitor • Ability to • Mental computation

49

Expanded Fluid Index [2](pp. 174–175) • Index requires

nonverbal problem ‐solving ability with use of previously of previously acquired acquired skills to solve a novel set of problems of problems The four subtests that comprise the

Complementary Indexes (p. 175) The three Complementary Indexes are • Naming Speed Index • Symbol Translation Index • Storage and Retrieval Index

Expanded Fluid Index are: Mat M atri rix x Reasoning

Figure Weights

Picture Arithmetic Concepts

Naming Speed Index [1](p. 175) Measures: • Processing speed • Long‐term storage and retrieval • Naming facility • Perceptual speed of test taking • Rate of test • Visual‐perceptual discrimination • Scanning ability

• Number sense

Ability to identify size, identify size, • Ability to color, letters, and numbers Automaticity in visual visual‐ • Automaticity in verbal associations • Attention • Concentration

Naming Speed Index [2](p. 175) The two subtests that comprise the Naming Speed Index are:

Naming Speed Literacy


50

Symbol Translation Index [1] (p. 175)

Measures: • Long‐term storage and retrieval • Short‐term memory • Visual processing • Associative memory • Working memory • Visualization

Symbol Translation Index [2] (p. 175)

• Visual

memory

The three subtests that comprise the Symbol Translation Index are:

• Visual‐perceptual

discrimination • Learning ability • Scanning ability • Recognition

memory • Rote learning

Immediate Symbol Translation

Delayed Symbol Translation

Recognition Symbol Translation

Storage and Retrieval Index [1]

Storage and Retrieval Index [2]

(p. 175)

(p. 175)

Measures: facility • Processing speed • Perceptual speed of test taking • Rate of test • Visual processing • Visualization • Associative memory • Naming

Measures: (Cont.) • Long‐term

storage and

retrieval • Short‐term memory • Working memory • Visual memory • Visual‐perceptual discrimination • Learning ability

• Scanning ability

• Retrieval

speed • Number sense • Immediate and delayed Ability to identify size, identify size, visual recall skills • Ability to color, letters, and • Paired‐associates numbers learning Automaticity of visual visual‐ • Attention and • Automaticity of verbal associations concentration • Recognition memory

51

Storage and Retrieval Index [3] (p. 175)

The two subtests that comprise the Storage and Retrieval Index are:

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [1](not in text) Review of Literature of Literature Norton and Wo and Wolf lf (2012) (2012) reviewed the literature on Rapid Automatiz Rapid Automatized ed Naming (RAN) and reading fluency. They concluded They concluded the following: RAN provides an index of one’s of one’s abilities to integrate multiple neural processes RAN and phonological awareness are both robust early predictors early predictors of reading of reading ability, and one or both are often impaired in people with people with dyslexia 

Naming Speed Index

Symbol Translation Symbol Translation Index

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [2](not in text) • Fluent reading can

be conceptualized as a complex ability that ability that depends on automaticity across automaticity across all levels of cognitive of cognitive and linguistic processing involved in reading, allowing the individual time and thought to be devoted to comprehension



Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [3](not in text) • Successful

intervention depends on accurate assessment of both of both accuracy and accuracy and speed across across all levels of reading of reading • Best interventions involve multicomponential intervention programs intervention programs that target phonology and multiple levels of language, of language, including:

52

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [4](not in text) •

Best interventions: (Cont.) Cont.) Orthography—study of Orthography—study of letters letters and spelling of words Morphology—study Morphology—study of of how how words words are formed Syntax—study how Syntax—study how words words are ordered to form logical, meaningful sentences Semantics—study of Semantics—study of the the meaning and interpretation of words words 







Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [6](not in text) Sources: Sources: Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid • Norton, E. S., & Wolf, Automatized Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading of reading disabilities. Annual disabilities. Annual Review Review Psychology, 63, 427–452. doi:10.1146/annurev ‐ psych‐120710‐100431

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [5](not in text) Example of Research of Research Willburger et al. (2008) reported the following: Sample size: N size: N = = 267 children Children with Children with dyslexia had a deficit in rapid naming of items of items Children with Children with dyscalculia had a deficit in rapid naming of quantities of quantities Children with Children with both dyslexia and dyscalculia had deficits in both rapid naming of items of items and rapid naming of quantities of quantities  





Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [7](not in text) • Willburger,

E., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., W K., Wood, ood, G., & Landerl, K. (2008). Naming speed in dyslexia and dyscalculia. Learning and Individual and Individual Differences, 18 Differences, 18(2), (2), 224–236. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.01.003 doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.01.003

53

Profile Analysis [1](p. 175) •

•

Aims of Profile of Profile Analys Analysis is To look at a child’s unique ability pattern ability pattern (including strengths and weaknesses), and weaknesses), going beyond the information contained in the FSIQ or the index scores To help in formulating teaching strategies, accommodations, and other types of interventions of interventions

Profile Analysis [2](p. 175) reliably be used • Cannot reliably be

to arrived at a clinical or psychoeducational diagnosis any one test should never be used as the • Results on any one sole basis for a clinical or psychoeducational diagnosis

Profile Analysis [3](p. 176)

Profile Analysis [4](p. 176)

Goal of Profile of Profile Analys Analysis is • To generate hypotheses about a child’s abilities, which then need to be verified be verified using other scores and information about the child

Relatively Large Relatively Large Intersubtest Intersubtest Variability May Indicate May Indicate or weaknesses • Special aptitudes or weaknesses • Acquired deficits or disease processes Temporary inefficiencies • Temporary inefficiencies • Motivational difficulties • Vision or hearing problems • Concentration difficulties • Rebelliousness

54

Profile Analysis [5](pp. 176) Relatively Large Relatively Large Intersubtest Intersubtest Variability Variability May Indicate May Indicate (Cont.) • Learning disabilities • Particular school or home experiences

Profile Analysis [6](p. 176) •

•

•

Profile Analysis [7](p. 178) Base Rates Determining the frequency with which with which the differences between scores occurred in the normative sample • Base rate approach • Probability ‐of ‐occurrence approach

Scaled Scores 13 to 19 always indicate a strength (84th to 99th percentile rank) 8 to 12 always indicate average ability (25 ability (25th to 75th percentile rank) 1 to 7 always indicate a weakness (1st to 16th percentile rank)

Profile Analysis [8](pp. 179–198) Methods of Profile of Profile Analy Analysis sis 1. Compare the primary index primary index scores—VCI, VSI, scores—VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, FRI, WMI, and PSI—with each other 2. Compare each primary index primary index score with score with the mean of the of the child’s primary index primary index scores and/or the FSIQ, using critical values critical values and base rates 3. Compare each primary index primary index subtest scaled score with the child’s mean scaled score on the primary index subtests (MSS‐P) and/or the FSIQ subtests (MSS‐F), using critical values critical values and base rates

55

Profile Analysis [9](pp. 179–198)

Profile Analysis [10](pp. 179–198)

Methods of Profile of Profile Analys Analysis is (Cont.) 4. Compare sets of individual of individual primary and primary and secondary subtest secondary subtest scaled scores 5. Compare the range of subtest of subtest scaled scores with scores with the base rate found in the normative sample 6. Compare the Cancellation Random and Cancellation Structured process scores and other process scores

Methods of Profile of Profile Analysi Analysiss (Cont.) 7. Compare the GAI and the CPI 8. Compare the VECI the VECI and the EFI 9. Compare the NSI and the STI 10. Compare sets of individual of individual complementary subtest standard scores

A Successive Level of Approach to Test Interpretation (pp. 198–200) •

The use of a of a successive‐level approach to test interpretation can help you help you better understand a child’s performance on the WISC–V the WISC–V (see (see Figure 4‐1, p. 199) by providing by providing • Quantitative and qualitative data • An analysis of both of both general and specific areas of intellectual functioning

Steps in Analyzing a Protocol (pp. 199–200)

•

See pages 199–200

56

Estimated Percentile Ranks and Age Equivalents (p. 200) • Estimated

percentile ranks can be obtained for the FSIQ, index scores, and subtest scaled scores • Age equivalents cam be obtained for the total raw scores of the index scores and • Qualitative descriptions of the FSIQ can be found on p. 200

Profile Variability [2] (p. 201) Research Studies (Cont.) Glutting, and Lei (2007) showed that WISC–III and WISC–IV and WISC–IV FSIQs FSIQs have robust correlations with correlations with measures of reading of reading and math, even when even when test profiles have at least one statistically significant statistically significant difference in factor or index scores: • 82% to 85% of the of the 4,044 children in study had study had at least one statistically significant statistically significant difference in factor or index scores

• Watkins,

Profile Variability [1] (p. 201) Research Studies FSIQ valid when when the index scores show • Is the FSIQ valid extreme variability? extreme variability? Two research reports shed light on this question methodology to • Daniel (2007) used stimulation methodology to investigate the effect of index of index score “scatter” on the construct validity construct validity on on the WISC–IV the WISC–IV FSIQ FSIQ FSIQ was “equally valid valid at all • He found that the FSIQ was levels of scatter, of scatter, supporting the interpretability of the FSIQ in populations characterized by variable variable index‐score profiles” (p.291)

Profile Variability [3] (p. 201) •

Comment The above studies argue against the position of Fiorell Fiorello o et al. (2007) and Hale et al. (2007) who (2007) who contended that the WISC–IV the WISC–IV FSIQ FSIQ should not be interpreted for children with children with disabilities when disabilities when index scores are diverse

57

Profile Variability [4] (p. 201)

Profile Variability [5] (p. 201)

Sources: • Daniel, M. H. (2007). ‘Scatter’ and the construct validity of validity of FSIQ: FSIQ: Comment on Fiorello Fiorello et al. (2007). Applied (2007). Applied Neuropsychology Neuropsychology,, 14(4), 14(4), 291–295. C. A., Hale, J. Hale, J. B., Holdnack, J. Holdnack, J. A., A., • Fiorello, C. A., Kavanagh, J. Kavanagh, J. A., A., Terrell, J., & Long, L. (2007). Interpreting intelligence test results for children with disabilities: Is global intelligence relevant? Applied Neuropsychology Neuropsychology,, 14(1), 14(1), 2–12.

Sources: (Cont.) Cont.) Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., C. A., Kavanagh, J. Kavanagh, J. A., A., • Hale, J. Holdnack, J. Holdnack, J. A., A., & Aloe, A. Aloe, A. M. (2007). Is the demise of IQ of IQ interpretation justified? A justified? A response response to special issue authors. Applied Neuropsychology Neuropsychology,, 14(1) 14(1) , 37–51. , 37–51. M. W., ., Glutting, J. Glutting, J. J., J., & Lei, P. W. W. (2007). • Watkins, M. W Validity Validity of of the the Full‐Scale IQ when IQ when there is a significant variability significant variability among among WISC–III WISC–III and WISC– and WISC– IV factor IV factor scores. Applied scores. Applied Neuropsychology Neuropsychology,, 14(1), 14(1), 13–20.

Reflection on Intelligence and Childhood “It takes a long time to time to grow young. grow young.” —Pablo Picasso “I not only use only use all the brains that I have, but all I can borrow.” —Woodrow Wilson —Woodrow Wilson

Report W Report Writing riting

58

Goals & Objectives (p. 325) Chapter designed to enable you enable you to: of a psychological report • Understand the purposes of a of a psychological report • Understand the sections of a • Develop appropriate skills for communicating findings and making recommendations in a report • Write a psychological report

Potential Sources of Report Information [2](p. 326) • Medical

reports • Other relevant sources

Potential Sources of Report Information [1](p. 326) • Psychological

tests Interviews with the child, his or her parents, • Interviews with teachers, and others by a • Questionnaires and rating forms completed by a parent, teacher, and/or evaluator by the child • Self ‐monitoring forms completed by the • Systematic behavioral observations • School records • Prior psychological or psychiatric reports

Qualities of a Good Report

(p. 326)

A report A report should be: • Well organized • Objective • Unbiased of the assessment data you data you • Based upon all of the gathered

59

Purposes of a Report [1](pp. 326–331) •

•

To provide accurate and understandable assessment‐related information to the referral source and others To serve as a basis for clinical hypotheses, appropriate interventions, and information for program evaluation and research

Purposes of a Report [2](pp. 326–331) •

•

To furnish meaningful baseline information • For evaluating the child’s progress after interventions have been implemented • For changes in the child that have occurred over time To serve as a legal document

Formulating the Report [1](p. 331)

Formulating the Report [2](p. 331)

Four considerations: 1. Who will Who will be the primary audiences primary audiences for the report? • After reading the report, what report, what new understanding will understanding will the readers have? • What new action will action will the readers take? 2. Consider the circumstances under which under which the assessment took place

Four considerations: (Cont.) 3. Include examples to illustrate or document selected statements you statements you make in the report 4. Make your Make your recommendations with recommendations with an appreciation of the of the needs and values and values of the of the child, the family, and the extended family; the family’s resources; the child’s ethnic and cultural group; the school; and the community

60

Other Considera Considerations tions (p. 331) • Subjective

Elements in the Report • Although you Although you should strive for objectivity and objectivity and accuracy in accuracy in writing writing a report, remember that no report can be completely objective completely objective • Every report Every report has elements of subjectivity of subjectivity in Writing ng the Report • Promptness in Writi after you • Write the report as soon as possible after you complete the assessment to ensure that you that you record all important details and do not forget any

22 Principles of Report Writing

Sections of a Report (pp. 332–339) • Report Title • Identifying Information • Assessment

Instruments

• Reason for Referral • Background

Information

During Assessment • Observations During Assessment • Assessment

Results Clinical Impressions • • Recommendations • Summary • Signature

22 Principles of Report Writing [2](pp. 339–364)

[1](pp. 339–364)

The 22 principles cover: • How to organize, interpret, and present the assessment findings help you apply some apply some of • Exercises are included to help you the principles

Principle 1 (pp. 339–340) • Organize Organize the assessment findings by looking by looking for common themes that run through them, integrating the main findings, and adopting an eclectic perspective

Principle 2 (pp. 340–341) • Include only relevant only relevant material in the report; omit potentially damaging potentially damaging material not germane to the evaluation

61



[3](pp. 339–364)

[4](pp. 339–364)

Principle 3 Principle 3 (pp. 341–342)

Principle 5 (pp. 343–344)

• Be extremely cautious extremely cautious in making interpretations based on a limited sample of behavior of behavior

Principle 4 (pp. 342–343) • Consider Consider all relevant sources of information of information about the child as you as you generate hypotheses and formulate interpretations

• Be definitive in your in your writing writing when when the findings are clear; be cautious in your in your writing writing when when the findings are not clear

Principle 6 (p. 344) • Cite specific behaviors and sources and quote the child directly to directly to enhance the report’s readability



[5](pp. 339–364)

[6](pp. 339–364)

Principle 7 (p. 344)


• Consider Consider the FSIQ, in most cases, to be the best estimate of the of the child’s present level of intellectual of intellectual functioning

Principle 8 (pp. 344–345) • Interpre Interprett the meaning and implications of a of a child’s scores, rather than simply citing simply citing test names and scores

• Obtain the classification of FSIQs of FSIQs and other test scores from the numerical ranges given in the test manuals

Principle 10 (p. 345–346) • Use percentile ranks whenever ranks whenever possible to describe a child’s scores

62



[7](pp. 339–364)

[8](pp. 339–364)

Principle 11 (p. 346) • Provide Provide clear descriptions and interpretations of abilities measured by the by the subtests when subtests when appropriate

Principle 12 (p. 347–348) • Relate Relate inferences based on subtest or index scores to the cognitive processes measured by them; by them; use caution in making generalizations

Principle 13 (p. 348–349) • Describe Describe the profile of scores of scores clearly and clearly and unambiguously

Principle 14 (p. 349–350) • Make recommendations carefully, using all available sources of information of information



[9](pp. 339–364)

[10](pp. 339–364)

Principle 15 (p. 350) • Provide Provide justification justification for each classification or diagnosis and address all relevant diagnostic criteria explicitly

Principle 16 (pp. 350–353) • Communica Communicate te clearly, and do not include unnecessary technical unnecessary technical material in the report

Principle 17 (p. 353–354) • Describe Describe and use statistical concepts appropriately; make sure to check all calculations carefully and carefully and to report the reliability and reliability and validity validity of the of the test results accurately

Principle 18 (p. 354) • Avoid biased language

63



[11](pp. 339–364)

[12](pp. 339–364)

Principle 21 (pp. 357–364) Principle 19 (p. 354–356)

• Develop Develop strategies to improve your improve your writing, writing, such as using an outline, revising your revising your first draft, using word‐processor editing tools, and proofreading your final report

• Write a report that is concise but adequate

Principle 20 (pp. 356–357)


• Attend Attend carefully to carefully to grammar and writing and writing style

• Maintain Maintain security of security of confidential confidential information • Treat confidential electronic files as carefully as you as you would would treat confidential paper files

Checklist (p. 363) A Good Report (p. 364) •

See Table 8‐3 (p. 363) for a checklist for evaluating accuracy, quality, and completeness of the of the first draft of your assessment report

Is understandable and interesting to read • Presents information in a logical manner accurately and explains them • Interprets test results accurately and clearly • Answers specific referral questions • Provides recommendations that are realistic and feasible • Provides a useful summary concise yet thorough • Is concise yet •

64

Reflections on Intelligence and Childhood “You might be poor, your poor, your shoes might be broken, but your mind is a palace.” —Frank McCourt

Reflections on Development The Little Boy and Boy and the Old Man Said the little boy, "Sometimes I drop my spoon." my spoon." Said the old man, "I do that too." The little boy whispered, whispered, "I wet "I wet my pants." my pants." I do that too," laughed the little old man. Said the little boy, "I often cry." The old man nodded, "So do I." But worst But worst of all," of all," said the boy, "it seems Grown‐ups don't pay attention pay attention to me." And he felt the warmth the warmth of a of a wrinkled old hand. I know what know what you you mean," said the little old man.” ― Shel Silverstein

65

Sattler-Assessment of Children.pdf

Recommend Documents